Stats O' the Day

[Roy Tennant]

I've added a link to this excellent resource on the Library Web Manager's 
Reference Center at:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Web4Lib/faq.html

Look for "Validating HTML" (the list is alphabetical). I urge everyone 
take a look at this.
Roy

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Thomas Dowling wrote:

> I've gathered some of my thoughts and comments on validation and put
> them up at <URL:http://gold.ohiolink.edu/tdowling/validation.html>,
> including a list of validation tools I've tried out.
> 
> 
> > From: Roy Tennant <rtennant at library.berkeley.edu>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Stats O' the Day
> > Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 6:26 PM
> > 
> > ...Now we all need to take it to heart and turn an critical eye 
> > on our pages with http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/REC-html32.html in our
> hands.
> > Roy Tennant
> 
> If we aren't beating a dead horse by now, it's at least looking unwell.
>  But it's fair to point out that some people have serious reservations
> about HTML 3.2, or "HTML puttanesca" as I like to think of it.  While
> 3.2 is the most "standard" version of HTML since 2.0, it calls itself
> an attempt to describe browser behavior as of early- or mid-1996.  I've
> heard from a couple of people who don't believe this is sufficiently
> rigorous for their needs; there have also been posts which indicate
> this is not sufficiently up to date for some needs.  I don't think the
> specific standard you compare yourself against is as important as
> knowledgeably picking *some* standard and getting a good idea of how
> you fare on that comparison.
> 
> 
> > From: Tim Tripp <ttripp at inforamp.net>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
> > Subject: Re: "Proper" HTML (was Re: status o' the day)
> > Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 7:20 PM
> >
> > All I care about is that the page displays properly.  How many of
> you,
> > when you recieve a WordPerfect document go in and check for
> extraneous
> > <Bold On><Bold Off> tags?  I guess I fall into Alex's latter category
> of
> > people who don't care.  My question is, Is there something I'm
> missing?...
> 
> One problem with this comparison is that it's hard to imagine looking
> at a WordPerfect document with any thing much different than another
> copy of WordPerfect (incl Word or WordPro, etc.).  The browser arena
> has always been much more diverse than that, and could easily be on the
> brink of rapid fragmentation: web browsers are already available for
> speech synthesizers and TVs, they're starting to come out for handheld
> computers, and they're on the way for devices like pagers and
> telephones.  The further some of these browsers get from the desktop
> computing metaphor, the less you can rely on saying "well, it looks
> okay in Netscape so it must work for pretty much everybody."
> 
> 
> Thomas Dowling
> Ohio Library and Information Network
> tdowling at ohiolink.edu
>